Gerry Byrne

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to join with my colleague in saying that information has just been received that a member of the Canadian armed forces has been found dead in Afghanistan. We sincerely convey our deepest regrets and sincere sympathies to the family.

As we progress with the debate on Bill C-6, it is evident there is a flurry of activity on the floor of the House of Commons. It appears we may be moving into committee of the whole very soon. The debate itself at second reading may be collapsing soon and there may be amendments that may come forward.

Has the New Democratic Party been able to achieve any consensus with the government that it will accept any of the amendments which the NDP may be in the process of proposing? If there has been no consensus achieved, I am wondering why we are doing this at this point in time. From a purely tactical point of view, would it not have been better to try this at 4 a.m. when a tactical advantage could be achieved? If the NDP is doing this in the middle of the day, what exactly is the game plan?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is very fair of you. I appreciate the member's frankness.

The question was whether members of the New Democratic Party have put forward options for amendments to this legislation. Has the NDP engaged in any discussions with the government? Has the government engaged in any discussions with the NDP and what is the status?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government has repeated its belief that urgent action is required. It was indeed the government that conducted itself with urgency when the crown corporation locked the employees out. It was the government that acted with urgency in tabling back to work legislation. Now the government says that urgent action is required to end this filibuster.

I repeat observations I made earlier in the House. The government did indeed have options available to it. When the government tabled government business Motion No. 3, there were specific opportunities missing from that motion that could have allowed expeditious passage of this bill, different sections referencing various standing orders, similar to the orders that were offered in the passage of the HST bill, the megatrials bill and the budget implementation act. They were not in the government motion.

I am asking if the New Democratic Party has engaged in any discussions with the government on amendments and if the government has accepted the New Democratic Party's offer to sit down and discuss amendments. It appears that the only way this is going to be resolved is if those two parties get together and cut a deal.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the government members have been citing the need for expediency, referencing the essential nature of the service. They are saying this needs to be passed. The New Democratic Party is obviously taking up the challenge of the filibuster, but again I will go back to how the filibuster may have been arranged to begin with.

For those who may be tweeting this, on Thursday, December 3, 2009, pursuant to Standing Order 57, the government issued a motion regarding the implementation of the HST bill. The government prescribed very specific terms and conditions as to how that debate would be allowed to proceed should the motion be adopted by the House. The motion was indeed adopted by the House.

The motion indicated specifically:

not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill and, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill...[be granted].

And then it said:

not more than four hours following the adoption of the second reading motion, any proceedings before the Committee to which the bill stands referred shall be interrupted, if required...and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the committee stage of the bill shall be put....

While the government professes to be angry about the NDP's filibuster, and the NDP is angry that the government is not responding to their requests, the reality here is that a trap was set and a trap was taken. That is what has happened here with this filibuster--

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the government, during the course of the debate, has accused the New Democratic Party of filibustering this particular debate. However, I would like to point out that the closure motion, which was tabled by the government, has interesting implications.

The government did not set any limit whatsoever on the time allocation of each stage of the bill. It used standing orders to set times for each individual speech by each individual member, but each stage of the bill was left without any special consideration. This is not how the government treated the HST bill in the previous Parliament, or the Budget Implementation Act in this Parliament.

In the previous parliaments and in this Parliament, the government had set, through government business specifically under Motion No. 3, a specific limitation on the time allocation for each individual stage of the bill. Actually, in the HST debate, the entire debate lasted six hours according to the government's own motion of closure.

If the government is so incensed about filibustering, why did it invite the New Democratic Party to do so and enable it by establishing rules for a filibuster?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, we have just heard the government House leader wonder why the filibuster is occurring.

It is becoming readily apparent to members of this chamber that the government exercised options here. The government exercised options in its tabling of the rules for how this debate would proceed. It did not set any limits on the time period for the debate.

The standing orders established what the time of speeches would be. Unlike other bills the government has introduced, for which it set limits on the time for debate at each stage, for this bill the government did not do that.

It did it for the HST debate. It did it for the budget implementation act. It did it for the mega-trials bill. It did not do so in this particular instance. It could have when it tabled government Motion No. 3, and it did not.

Why not?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, members of the government have stood for the last number of hours insisting that this debate is essentially on the stability and restoration of the well-being of the economy.

I would like to point out for members of the House that the stability and the well-being of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, of maritimers across the entire country, depends on access to proper services.

If the essence of this debate is to instill stability and security to the economy of all Canadians, the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl is making a very valid case as to why all matters must be addressed by the House. He is putting in perspective a matter which is not receiving the attention of the House because the government has banned collective action by Canada Post employees by locking them out from work.

I ask that the line of comment and questions being brought forward by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl be allowed to continue because I feel they are relevant.

[Business of Supply, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there was a very serious issue that affected senior's income not long ago. For those senior citizens who decide to withdraw their registered retirement income funds to respond to a housing crisis, emergency home repairs, emergency medical assistance, or anything else, the government decided on May 17, 2010 that they would lose their GIS benefits. Consequentially, they would also lose their drug cards and other provincial benefits tied to the GIS.

When this was brought to the floor of the House, the government said that it would amend its decision and prevent that from happening. This required a change to the Old Age Security Act.

Will the minister of state commit today that her government will immediately bring in amendments to the Old Age Security Act to ensure that senior citizens, should they withdraw their RRIFs, would not lose their GIS benefits as a result of a loss of optioning?

[Business of Supply, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, will the member from the New Democratic Party, as well the party as a whole, join with me and the Liberal Party of Canada in protecting the rights of seniors and protecting the financial viability of seniors regarding changes that have occurred through the guaranteed income supplement program?

Changes occurred back on May 17, 2010, when seniors lost the capacity or right to what is known as optioning out income regarding removals or withdrawals from their registered retirement income funds for the purposes of calculating their overall income under the guaranteed income supplement program.

A decision was taken stemming from what was known as the Ward decision back in 2007 in which the Government of Canada sued a GIS recipient for improper benefits and the court struck down certain provisions that allowed seniors to option out certain elements of their income. The government has never responded by changing the law. The court advised the government to change the law to allow this to occur, but the court said that under the current wording of the Old Age Security Act, that provision was not acceptable.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 15th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the title of the bill refers to supporting vulnerable seniors, an issue that was raised in the 40th Parliament in December of 2010. It was the decision of the Government of Canada to eliminate the optioning provision for senior citizens who withdrew their registered retirement income funds. The government eliminated the optioning of that income, thereby preventing many seniors from receiving guaranteed income supplement benefits, or risk having their benefits dramatically reduced.

When the government's action in this regard was brought to the full attention of the House, the government rescinded its decision, or at least said that it had rescinded its decision. It noted that it was wrong to take away the benefits of the guaranteed income supplement from seniors who withdrew funds from their registered retirement income funds, and pledged that it would correct the problem.

The issue came on the back of a tax court decision called the Ward decision. The tax court ruled on when an individual was denied GIS benefits because he or she had withdrawn funds from their RRIF and the Government of Canada had withdrawn its support. Madam Ward had to take the matter to court. Regrettably, she lost. The tax court ruled that the current provisions of the Old Age Security Act as written offered the government proper recourse and authority to deny those benefits. The government said that it would change the act.

Does this budget implementation bill actually amend the Old Age Security Act to allow the withdrawal of funds from a registered retirement income fund and allow the optioning provision for the GIS and do so in accordance with the law? Yes or no?